Right? Wrong?

[xander-]

How do you choose what's right and what's wrong? Why can we say that Hitler was bad, when he thinks he wasen't? Bad/wrong and good/right is in the eye of the beholder. So basicly, does that mean we just inherrit our views from our parents, and dont give it our own thoughts?

-Xander

 

[Linus]

It's up to the individual to determine right and wrong for themselves. I personally derive my sense of right and wrong fromthe Bible. But others do inherit theirs from their parents. Others define their own through other means. Most people say Hitler was bad because he directly caused countless lives to be lost through no fault of their own. Some would say he was good in that he knew how to lead, he unified a divided nation, gave them goals, etc. What may be wrong for one person, could be perfectly fine for an other. Who determines it? Every one must do that for him or herself. Hope this helps.

 

[Fluffy]

I think everyone develops their own moral code over the course of their lives. That is what I am doing on this board.

Since I don't believe in a higher power (as such), I don't have a moral code which has been ordained for me. So I base my morality upon reason and logic. At the most basic level, my morality is totally summed up in the Golden Rule. Then everything else is based upon that. One of the most important rules that I live by, I got from Wicca, and now still believe in it but for different reasons and that is "An it harm none, do what you will". In other words Im like a pick n mix in a store when it comes to morality.

 

[xander-]

Right, but that would also mean that there is no right and wrong, which would mean that the world is in a neutrual, right?

-Xander

 

[Fluffy]

Possibly. There might be some absolute morals. If you were a Christian for example then you would have at least one or two very clear definitions of what is right and wrong. This is probably the same for any train of thought apart from nihilism.

If a god said that certain things were right or wrong and this god was proven to be existed or there was a proven logical concept of what was right and wrong then the world would definitely not be in neutral. Beyond that and you are in the territory of the nihilist.

 

[fromthe heart]

Right...driving 55 mph in a posted 55 mph zone...wrong...sitting along the road being written up by that policeman for not doing right.

 

[linwood]

There are no absolute morals.
(In my opinion)

Morals are defined by those that hold them.

Some follow a preset system (Religion)

Some custom make their own.

Mine personally are derived in accordance to harm done to another.

If it causes harm or takes away from another it`s immoral.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Morality depends on the perceived value of things. People disagree on morality because they differ either in what they value or in their perception of reality. Since reality is largely objective, the objectiveness of morality would depend on whether there is a universal set of values. If it exists, the values are probably human-centric because most of what we value is related to the needs and desires of humans. It would have to affirm that humans have an innate value not tied to what they can do for others. For theists, God also has innate value, and some would say that animals and other things have innate value as well.

For Christianity, the system of values is summed up by the statements to love God and love neighbor.

 

[Sunstone]

Let me suggest that there might be two kinds of moralities. The first kind of morality is the social morality, which focuses on what is good for society. The second kind of morality is the individual morality, which focuses on what is good for the individual.

As I see it, Christianity is more concerned with social morality than it is with individual morality. But the trick is to create a morality that works both for the good of the individual and the good of society. I think some of the ancient Greeks pioneered such dual moralities.

 

[Master Vigil]

There may be objective morality, but we as humans do not know of it, at least not completely. There seems to be common threads of morality in cultures but in no way are they exact. And there are also MANY exact opposite views on morality as well. I chalk it up to our perception. Perception is not reality, it is perception. And morals are apart of our perception of the world around us. As that perception changes, so does morality.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Hitler was not bad, he was just another name in the long list of names involved in the idiocy and self destruction of humanity. The French had no qualms when German civilians licked wall paper glue for nourishment in the 1920s when they were starving and dying in the streets because of a destroyed economy, nor did they care when some of civilians in the many colonies that they ruled with a brutal hand (or many other European nations for that matter) died of starvation torture, wars etc. caused by the colinization and exploitation they brought for centuries. If we want to condemn one, condemn all for the same.